OLD and the paradox of choice

[normal person]

Let's say you are 30 and you have a list of dating requirements that must be met. You finally meet someone who checks all your boxes, but what are the odds you will check all of theirs? Not good, IMO.

 

But presumably if you're a realistic 30 year old, you've spent your single years achieving things that will check off their boxes. Consider the gender dynamics too. If you're a 30 year old man who spent your 20s working your butt off, building a business, making tons of money, learning everything you can, staying in shape, etc, you're in your prime and you're as desirable as you've ever going to be. If you're a 30 year old woman, regardless of success, yes, it's going to be different for you. On the macro level, the people who will benefit by waiting are the ones who spent the time improving their odds. The people who it likely won't benefit are the ones who just sat there, waiting, not doing much else.

 

You assume we are "supposed" to be with anyone. I don't believe in such things.

 

I don't believe in "soul mates" or any of that either, I think we're just arguing about semantics here. By the person you're "supposed" to be with, I just meant "someone you really like who you don't feel like you're settling for."

 

No one is pointing a gun to your head.. but today's society projects relationships over the top and spectacular. Both men and women are looking for standards too high.

 

As I've said, there's a much different trajectory for realistic people than there is for unrealistic people. If you can meet similarly high standards yourself, what's the problem?

 

If you were looking for a job would you reject every job until your dream job?? or gain some type of experience..?

 

Not the best analogy, because

1). You need a job to survive and the personnel turnover is high and expected. A lot of jobs don't expect you to be there forever, and even if they do, in the even that you leave, most people can be replaced relatively easily.

 

2). Romantic relationships have more of a moral component. When you're with someone, it's hopefully not under the pretense of "we're just together until we find better partners." Or imagine telling your girlfriend you've been with her "just to gain the experience," give her 2 weeks notice, and move on to someone better. Do people use each other like this? Absolutely. Is it moral? Not in my book. If I don't like someone, I feel bad wasting both her and my time. Doing so is pretty selfish, in my mind. I move on because I know I can do better. But to each their own.

 

 

The longer and older you get the longer its harder to integrate with someone and live with someone because they will be set in their ways..

 

True, but that's part of the risk you take. If you're waiting for the right person and you're realistic enough, hopefully you also have the sense to recognize this too. You're hopefully realistic enough to know that the longer you wait, the more of the bad you might have to take with the good. If some people want to make that choice, they can. The market will decide their fate.

 

 

The data shows from different and multiple dating sites not just the US, but over seas. Collectively women lurk for the top 20%.

 

So if you're in the top 20%, then you can wait. That's what I'm saying.

 

At the crux of this, all I'm saying is that every case should be carefully considered. If you're in your prime and demand for you is high, you can probably afford to wait it out and find someone you don't have settle much for. If you're not, maybe you shouldn't wait so long.

Edited August 15, 2017 by normal person

[JuneJulySeptember]

But presumably if you're a realistic 30 year old, you've spent your single years achieving things that will check off their boxes. Consider the gender dynamics too. If you're a 30 year old man who spent your 20s working your butt off, building a business, making tons of money, learning everything you can, staying in shape, etc, you're in your prime and you're as desirable as you've ever going to be. If you're a 30 year old woman, regardless of success, yes, it's going to be different for you. On the macro level, the people who will benefit by waiting are the ones who spent the time improving their odds. The people who it likely won't benefit are the ones who just sat there, waiting, not doing much else.

 

Those things don't necessarily increase your odds as much as you think.

 

And even if they increased your odds of getting women to like you they don't necessarily increase your odds of being happy. Brad Pitt is the pinnacle of a desirable male (or any of those guys) and he's been divorced a bunch of times.

 

I think there's also personality variation.

 

For example, I don't like my job all that much. So sometimes I go around and ask people who love their job what they do. And for a couple of people, it ends up being exactly what I do or pretty close.

 

I think as long as you're happy, then you're happy. If you think you can be happier, then you have a decision to make.

[normal person]

Those things don't necessarily increase your odds as much as you think.

 

And even if they increased your odds of getting women to like you they don't necessarily increase your odds of being happy. Brad Pitt is the pinnacle of a desirable male (or any of those guys) and he's been divorced a bunch of times.

 

I think there's also personality variation.

 

For example, I don't like my job all that much. So sometimes I go around and ask people who love their job what they do. And for a couple of people, it ends up being exactly what I do or pretty close.

 

I think as long as you're happy, then you're happy. If you think you can be happier, then you have a decision to make.

 

True, but at the end of the day, there's little more we can do besides give the highest value to each individual's judgment on what or who will make them happy, not assume we know what's better for them.

 

My pet peeve on this forum is when people say to others "drop your standards." That's not a rational solution for everyone. I can see some instances where it might have its merits, but it's far from a catch-all. Attraction is biological, and you can't force a biological urge. You like what you like, and anything else is probably going to be unsatisfying.

 

It's like people saying "real men like women with curves/weight issues/whatever," or "if you're not willing to date transgender people, you're transphobic," or "every body is beautiful." Sorry, but you don't get to decide what other people are attracted to. It's their biological urge that does the deciding, not your whims, desires, or political views. If it were as simple as "be attracted to people you're not attracted to," everyone would be happy and this forum wouldn't exist.

 

So if you're happier taking the chance to wait, do it. If you're happier playing it safe with someone who checks a few of your boxes but necessarily all, that's fine too. I'm sure you'll find varying degrees of happiness across the spectrum of people who didn't wait and those who did. Whatever you do is a gamble, but some of us have different strategies and methodologies.

 

But at the end of the day, you know yourself better than anyone. Whatever you do should be a very honest, well considered, personal decision, not a public one.

[Sweetfish]

True, but at the end of the day, there's little more we can do besides give the highest value to each individual's judgment on what or who will make them happy, not assume we know what's better for them.

 

My pet peeve on this forum is when people say to others "drop your standards." That's not a rational solution for everyone. I can see some instances where it might have its merits, but it's far from a catch-all. Attraction is biological, and you can't force a biological urge. You like what you like, and anything else is probably going to be unsatisfying.

 

It's like people saying "real men like women with curves/weight issues/whatever," or "if you're not willing to date transgender people, you're transphobic," or "every body is beautiful." Sorry, but you don't get to decide what other people are attracted to. It's their biological urge that does the deciding, not your whims, desires, or political views. If it were as simple as "be attracted to people you're not attracted to," everyone would be happy and this forum wouldn't exist.

 

So if you're happier taking the chance to wait, do it. If you're happier playing it safe with someone who checks a few of your boxes but necessarily all, that's fine too. I'm sure you'll find varying degrees of happiness across the spectrum of people who didn't wait and those who did. Whatever you do is a gamble, but some of us have different strategies and methodologies.

 

But at the end of the day, you know yourself better than anyone. Whatever you do should be a very honest, well considered, personal decision, not a public one.

 

 

So increasing your standards is not bad either? Is that your argument? Increasing the price of a product doesn't have ill effects to a company? Only wanting to eat only the best foods (to your taste) is not bad nor can effect you? Life has it balance and you don't go to low and you don't go to high. Balance is naturally a universal law. The only high standards you should be looking for is in your self and with the laws of balance you will get the best you produce in your self.

 

You want to have no profile and look for men with great profiles?

You want a guy that approaches women, but women do not men.

Guy has to be fit.. but she can surpass her BMI. Young women today (and men)over value them selves and its not their fault.. Disney polishes them with the countless amounts of princess and princesses.. they are then upgraded to romantic movies and rom/coms. Just like how men are shown countless bikini bodies.

 

Yes, increasing or having high standards and not putting out the same standards because of your gender... (because you know many men will respond anyways..) the universal law of balance will find it way..

 

 

I am also glad you brought up biological urges as mens biological urges are to have younger (fertile women) and men biological urges are to have (men who can provide) Women are the higher consumers of clothing and make-up men are the highest produces in work and revenues. We buy majority of the cars and homes and build those homes. It doesn't get any more clear cut than that. Height, weight, job position, a sense that other women are after him (the top 20%) all signal to her he is a great catch. Those standards requires many women to either stay single for ever if they hold the standards too high...or simple be comfortable being alone and enjoying life with them selves and that's ok..because the older you stay alone the hard it will be to live leave the single life. but for the woman that wants a child before 30 and have a child in her best fertile years wants to settle down at 27/28 and really expect that mr. perfect is going to just pop out when your good and ready.. The sense of many men respond to you does not mean the men marriage or there are plenty of diamonds out there.

 

Just like work everyone feels they are X great or deserve X pay and the reality is people are not honest with them selves male and female and expect the best always and only few people can expect.

[Miss Spider]

Ugh. Sorry, back on topic. I think a lot of people are happy enough to just find someone they really like.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[normal person]

So increasing your standards is not bad either? Is that your argument? Increasing the price of a product doesn't have ill effects to a company? Only wanting to eat only the best foods (to your taste) is not bad nor can effect you? Life has it balance and you don't go to low and you don't go to high. Balance is naturally a universal law. The only high standards you should be looking for is in your self and with the laws of balance you will get the best you produce in your self.

 

It can and it can't, like I said, it's a gamble. Sometimes raising prices is profitable, sometimes not. I'm not making blanket statements here, things clearly need to be looked at on a case by case basis. You can find cases of companies increasing the prices of the products while providing no extra value and succeeding, and similarly failing. It's nuanced.

 

Being delusional about your market value in either direction will affect your happiness. If you aren't realistic, you'll get a reality check and suffer the consequences one way or another. The market is always right. What I'm trying to expound upon is how each individual should determine what the right decision is, not just say "everyone should wait for the perfect person." I'm just saying, give an honest, unbiased evaluation of yourself, your circumstances, and market conditions and make the trade based on that info. If you can honestly figure out which decision, whatever it is, you think will make you the happiest, go for it.

[JuneJulySeptember]

 

My pet peeve on this forum is when people say to others "drop your standards." That's not a rational solution for everyone. I can see some instances where it might have its merits, but it's far from a catch-all. Attraction is biological, and you can't force a biological urge. You like what you like, and anything else is probably going to be unsatisfying.

 

 

But that's only because they whine non-stop about not being able to find anybody and then on top of that post how picky they are.

 

What else can you say to a person that has that attitude?

 

What happens for a lot of people when they get older, they start to see the end of the tunnel. Then they have to make some hard fast decisions on what to do. Man, should I marry this one, should I keep this career path, and the big one ... should I start a family with this one?

 

So ... finding someone to date is just scratching the surface of the REAL dilemmas to come. In any case, not everybody goes that way. I've seen posters here in their 60s that still go on tons of dates, and use lingo like friendzone and 'I ghosted this guy', etc.

 

Nothing is settling when you're six feet under. But you really can't see that in your 20s/early to mid 30s.

[Sweetfish]

It can and it can't, like I said, it's a gamble. Sometimes raising prices is profitable, sometimes not. I'm not making blanket statements here, things clearly need to be looked at on a case by case basis. You can find cases of companies increasing the prices of the products while providing no extra value and succeeding, and similarly failing. It's nuanced.

 

Being delusional about your market value in either direction will affect your happiness. If you aren't realistic, you'll get a reality check and suffer the consequences one way or another. The market is always right. What I'm trying to expound upon is how each individual should determine what the right decision is, not just say "everyone should wait for the perfect person." I'm just saying, give an honest, unbiased evaluation of yourself, your circumstances, and market conditions and make the trade based on that info. If you can honestly figure out which decision, whatever it is, you think will make you the happiest, go for it.

 

 

I agree... but only great companies with great products can sell higher prices. On OLD if 80% of the men are considered below average. Many women on OLD are claiming they are average or above average and eventually balance and real market value will come into effect and the % will have to lower their standards. Women at a younger age are consider more valuable and older men are consider more valuable. Thus you see more older men and younger women on average.

 

You are right, people need to be honest with what they are and true to their self evaluation... Thus... the more you fix your flaws and improve ... naturally great ppl will be attracted to you.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Sweetfish

[normal person]

But that's only because they whine non-stop about not being able to find anybody and then on top of that post how picky they are.

 

What else can you say to a person that has that attitude?

 

"Hold yourself to the same standards, or suffer the consequences."

Edited August 15, 2017 by normal person

[bluefeather]

Hmm. Trying to look passed what seems like arguing for argument's sake, I think all of you are right in at least one point or another.

 

Isn't this all moot, though? If you throw a bunch of people into a singles mixer party, not everyone is going to go home with a date that night. In fact, you may have a scenario where a group of girls is going to be around one or two guys, or vice-versa. OLD has similar elements to a party like this, only the guest list is pretty much open (meaning a lot of unattractive, unsociable, and unhappy people will also show up), and the bar is also open (meaning people are not afraid to say whatever they want).

 

So with a situation like that, it can be kind of challenging to find a suitable partner. It would be like if lover-boy sees lover-girl across the crowd, but he can't even get to her because the place is full of chattering randoms. But if they do manage to get close enough for a conversation, the question is, is lover-boy even able to get his introduction across well enough? The music is loud so he has to yell. ~ the music, in this case, is symbolizing the horrible communication impediment that is text.

 

Now he may do a well enough job at saying "hello there, how you doin?" but at that point, the continued connection must rely on the receiver's side. She's buzzing and has been approached by 10 different guys already. Some were not her type, others were just plain creepy. Music is starting to give her a headache and bam, she realizes that the party is getting boring really fast. ~ She is officially jaded by OLD. After this point, her potential match filter kicks into overdrive. These two might have been a good match, but this is just not a good party. "Everyone here sucks!" This is probably not true, but a normal emotional response to the disappointing experience.

 

Given that in this scenario, the two people could actually be a good match, either side of these could mess the opportunity up. The messenger could completely wuss out and stumble around his words, failing to get her number/ask her out when the time was right, or the receiver could poorly discern a genuine opportunity from the rest of the attempts, and leave.

 

So my conclusion is that OLD has similar traits to other chaotic events with limited communication. If you don't understand and accept this, and learn to have fun with it, you will likely become frustrated. And continuing to use something that only brings you frustration is counter-productive.

 

-Just my opinion.

[JuneJulySeptember]

 

Given that in this scenario, the two people could actually be a good match, either side of these could mess the opportunity up. The messenger could completely wuss out and stumble around his words, failing to get her number/ask her out when the time was right, or the receiver could poorly discern a genuine opportunity from the rest of the attempts, and leave.

 

 

A lot of crucial things in life parallel this.

 

If I quit my job today (I still happen to be here E.S.T.), would my life be better 10 years from now? Conventional wisdom says that's not a wise move.

 

So, even if a gal picks one out of 350 guys which is the one she thinks is the most handsome, and successful, the envy of all others ... is that the guy who would have made her happiest out of the 349 she turned down?

 

Impossible to say.

 

The game is actually much easier to play if you just think of it in terms of looks, salary, height, status, etc. Then, it's easier to say, "Yea, I did it 'cuz I married a handsome doctor. I made it." If you think of it in terms of compatibility and happiness, things are a lot harder.

[Sweetfish]

Hmm. Trying to look passed what seems like arguing for argument's sake, I think all of you are right in at least one point or another.

 

Isn't this all moot, though? If you throw a bunch of people into a singles mixer party, not everyone is going to go home with a date that night. In fact, you may have a scenario where a group of girls is going to be around one or two guys, or vice-versa. OLD has similar elements to a party like this, only the guest list is pretty much open (meaning a lot of unattractive, unsociable, and unhappy people will also show up), and the bar is also open (meaning people are not afraid to say whatever they want).

 

So with a situation like that, it can be kind of challenging to find a suitable partner. It would be like if lover-boy sees lover-girl across the crowd, but he can't even get to her because the place is full of chattering randoms. But if they do manage to get close enough for a conversation, the question is, is lover-boy even able to get his introduction across well enough? The music is loud so he has to yell. ~ the music, in this case, is symbolizing the horrible communication impediment that is text.

 

Now he may do a well enough job at saying "hello there, how you doin?" but at that point, the continued connection must rely on the receiver's side. She's buzzing and has been approached by 10 different guys already. Some were not her type, others were just plain creepy. Music is starting to give her a headache and bam, she realizes that the party is getting boring really fast. ~ She is officially jaded by OLD. After this point, her potential match filter kicks into overdrive. These two might have been a good match, but this is just not a good party. "Everyone here sucks!" This is probably not true, but a normal emotional response to the disappointing experience.

 

Given that in this scenario, the two people could actually be a good match, either side of these could mess the opportunity up. The messenger could completely wuss out and stumble around his words, failing to get her number/ask her out when the time was right, or the receiver could poorly discern a genuine opportunity from the rest of the attempts, and leave.

 

So my conclusion is that OLD has similar traits to other chaotic events with limited communication. If you don't understand and accept this, and learn to have fun with it, you will likely become frustrated. And continuing to use something that only brings you frustration is counter-productive.

 

-Just my opinion.

 

 

 

The proof is in the numbers... in their 20s many women believe 80% of men are below average and have a poor response rate. "No men in the buffet" Older women have a higher response rate than men when the ages creep up to 40 and 50.

 

So suddenly men go from being below average at a 80% rate to the same level or above average when they get older..

 

Isnt that a clear indication of a collective drop in standards or suddenly older men are valued? You cant assume that suddenly 80% of the population of OLD in regards to men became 30% more desirable... they simply became more valuable.

 

This is data over years and from eharmony to POF. Society projects women so great at a young age thats its over inflated to the point other women are self conflicted with weight, looks, and have all types of surgery and implants these days.. But when the looks fade... when a new batch of 20 and 30 year old women hit the market.. filling out that profile sure does look lucractive now.

[Popsicle]

It seems awfully like an episode of The Bachelor/Bachelorette.

[bluefeather]

JuneJulySeptember and Sweetfish,

 

It seems like you are just repeating yourselves. I already said I can see your points and even agree with them somewhat. I was not debating - just giving my perspective.

[knabe]

It seems to me that the guys who bring a lot to the table don't get paralyzed by "choice." They find someone with whom they are compatible and move on. They sometimes even pick a woman who may not "seem" to be of their "caliber."

 

The ones who have trouble don't bring all that much to the table (and I'm not talking job and looks, I'm talking negativity, jaded attitude, entitlement, whininess, etc.) are the ones who say they don't have someone because "women are flakes" or because they themselves are "too picky to just settle."

 

In other words, to be crass, guys who are 4's in the personality and attitude department want 10's in the looks, boobs, and personality department. And they actually think they are entitled to that. So when they don't get it, it is the fault of OLD or the entire female gender. And when you tell them to work on themselves, they go buy a new shirt and then gripe when it "doesn't work."

[salparadise]

Now he may do a well enough job at saying "hello there, how you doin?" but at that point, the continued connection must rely on the receiver's side. She's buzzing and has been approached by 10 different guys already. Some were not her type, others...

 

As a man, my experience is that many women have the expectation that they don't need to put any effort or enthusiasm into the communication. They have that tired old notion that a man is supposed to be so taken with her beauty and allure that he will pursue diligently and overcome any obstacle (it's a profile, not a person).

 

So we scour her profile for relevant points, craft a few good paragraphs with potential topics of discussion, add a couple clever quips and open-ended questions ... and we get a friendly eight word response that says nothing more than "thanks for the message, nice to hear from you."

 

I usually don't respond if that all the effort she's willing to make. It's pointless. Sometimes I may ask to meet in the follow up message if I sense something positive. I have a pretty good success rate asking to meet instantly. At that point it becomes real if we click. But even then, there is an expectation with so many that it's all up to the man to keep it lively and entertaining. That's what kills it for me ninety percent of the time.

 

Sometimes they'll write back after a week and ask what happened! Is the expectation so integrated that they aren't even aware if it? I find it really puzzling how flat they can be.

Edited August 16, 2017 by salparadise

[CryForNoOne]

10 Online Dating Statistics (for U.S.) You Should Know | eHarmony

 

 

 

The Number Of Messages Men Have To Send To Get A Response When Online Dating Is Absurd - Business Insider

 

 

 

 

 

its a buffet...just don't like the selection.

 

Sweetfish, these stats are fascinating and really helps put OLD in perspective for me. These numbers, combined my personal experiences, only reinforce my opinion that the fallacy of choice plays a really strong role for women on OLD. I'm sure it affects some men, but not most and certainly not me.

 

The study claims that only 4% of women respond to men their same age. I'm 6'1, 180, have good career, and have a degree from a top 25 school. On paper, I'm a "catch". I also own a home in an expensive neighborhood and drive a $60k car, but I don't mention any of that on my profile. Should I? I don't think so, but I wonder what other male profiles look like. Do other guys brag or lie??? Anyway, I'm also a decent writer though I intentionally avoid making my profile look "crafted". I just answer profile questions matter-of-factly with a little personality and humor interjected. I can objectively say that my profile doesn't stand out but it also should not be a turnoff either. Really, my only glaring negative is that I'm half Asian. I definitely notice white girls who seem like they are looking for a guy named "Brett" are by far, the least likely to reply to my messages. I initially thought my other big deal killer, is that I have a 3 year old daughter. At first, I didn't mention her but later decided to add a pic of her and be totally upfront about it. But my overall response rate didn't change one bit. There was a shift in that older women or moms were much more likely to respond than before, with a corresponding drop-off in younger women with no kids, but the overall response rate stayed exactly the same.

 

I signed up on OKC about 4 weeks ago and as of this morning, I have sent 235 messages (thankfully OKC conveniently lists the total in your inbox) and had 60 replies. That's just over a 25% response rate. Of those only about 20 went past one reply. So over 90% of women find me unattractive for one reason or another. It's not my kid. Is it really because I'm half-Asian? Or because I don't brag about my material possessions? I chose to go the "Straight Man" profile i.e. Jason Bateman. That's what 9/10 women "claim" they want. Not the actor/model selfie taking "look-at-me" guy. But maybe I need to go that route? Or do I need to shamelessly pander to my audience and write some BS prose about "work hard, play hard, I love to travel" and take photos with my friend's dog, even though I don't own one right now (I love dogs but am not home to justify one). "Oh look at him! He loves dogs and travelling!"

 

Myself I only have 2 criteria to message a woman online. She must be very attractive (pretty face and look good in a bikini) and not be a Trump supporter / religious nut. Once we actually meet, there are plenty more attributes I'm looking for, but I think it's pointless trying to gauge those before meeting. And honestly, if I added all those filters before meeting, I'm going to get one or two dates a year.

 

So of those 20 or so convos, I got about a dozen numbers. Only 6 dates. A couple of them got shut down for random reasons. Ex. I'm a musician (not my career) and while texting, mentioned I was on tour so they are asked how often I go on tour. I said a lot during the summer, but not much the rest of the year. Instantly ghosted. I totally get the feel they have 10 suitors and are trying to find ANY reason to cross me off the list...

 

Of the 5 dates (the sixth is Friday), 4 were interested in me and wanted to see me again. The other pretended to be responding to a text (but called an Uber) and rudely bailed mid-convo - I wasn't interested either so found her stealth exit amusing. I was only interested in 1 of the 4. I slept with 2 of them, obviously the one I was interested but also another who made herself available. The only one I liked dumped me after date #3.

 

Now I'm going to contrast myself to my ex. When people saw us together, they always said we made a great couple. That was code or just an inarticulate way of saying we are what psychologists call a "matched" couple. A phenomenon I very much believe in. People of the same attractiveness level wind up together. Now my online profile "should" be much better than hers. She has no career, dropped out of college, and is now a single mom (the latter is a much bigger stigma for women). She's a great person, but on paper, the only thing she has going for her are her looks. I have no idea if she uses OLD. But I guarantee, 1000% that if she does, she could 50 numbers a day...

Edited August 16, 2017 by CryForNoOne

[Larryville]

So I signed up on OKC about 4 weeks ago and as of this morning, I have sent 235 messages.

 

Wow... I have not sent that many messages in all of the years participating in OLD even back to the Love@AOL and Yahoo Message boards back in the Mid 90's.

 

CFNO: I’m sorry, I’ve mentioned this before so this is not targeted at you specifically and the tactic of sending that many messages has come up often, Maybe I’m reading too much into it but my thinking is if you send out that many messages you don’t value women or you truly don’t value what finding a quality woman means. And any woman who has even a little bit of common sense will just think you are just gaming.

 

In addition even if you do get someone to write back and you start talking, you will be constantly be thinking in the back of your mind there is something better out there.

 

Again this is not specific to you because most online dating dude articles suggest just what you did and this is exactly why only 4% of women respond and get completely burned out.

 

And exactly why… “The Number Of Messages Men Have To Send To Get A Response When Online Dating Is Absurd” it’s a vicious cycle.

[bluefeather]

salparadise, I know exactly what you mean. I have experienced, as you put it, "flatness" before. And those kinds of women are the ones I just pass over. They are so boring! But again, this is very similar to real-life situations. I probably wouldn't get along with 90% of the people I run into day to day, but once in a while, I will bump into someone where it's just like non-stop conversation, or a connection you both can tell you can feel, and those are the ones I pursue. Not those "maybe I'll give you a few words if you entertain me" dullards.

[Bastile]

To give brief context, in real life, it doesn't take 200 approaches to get a number. That would be a Quasimodo level of ridiculousness. Don't think I've even heard of that before.

 

More like 10 as a beginner. 5 when you are settled.

 

As for a response? Every girl, obviously. Sweetfish's OLD stats are shocking. It was a while back that I did it, but I don't remember it being anywhere near that bad, and it still pissed me off.

 

I find that about 40% or 50% of street approaches end up in a good back and forth mutual exchange. Some are straight up cringe worthy blow-outs though, too. A lot of guys don't want to deal with that, fair enough.

 

But I think if more men tried it, they would be surprised how f**king cool most women actually are as standard.

[Shining One]

I’m sorry, I’ve mentioned this before so this is not targeted at you specifically and the tactic of sending that many messages has come up often, Maybe I’m reading too much into it but my thinking is if you send out that many messages you don’t value women or you truly don’t value what finding a quality woman means.

I have to disagree with this conclusion. Some of us, often due to attributes completely outside our control, naturally receive significantly fewer responses. Thus, in order to see any sort of results, we need to send out significantly more messages than "normal". It has nothing to do with how we value women.

[SwordofFlame]

CFNO: I’m sorry, I’ve mentioned this before so this is not targeted at you specifically and the tactic of sending that many messages has come up often, Maybe I’m reading too much into it but my thinking is if you send out that many messages you don’t value women or you truly don’t value what finding a quality woman means. And any woman who has even a little bit of common sense will just think you are just gaming.

 

Has nothing to do with valuing women. Guys on average, find a lot more women attractive than vice versa. That fact combined with the fact that some guys are oblivious as to what "league" they're in leads men to send a message to every woman he finds attractive. You can't determine who the quality women are until after meeting in person anyway. Is it a game? Of course it is, dating is a game.

[CryForNoOne]

Wow... I have not sent that many messages in all of the years participating in OLD even back to the Love@AOL and Yahoo Message boards back in the Mid 90's.

 

CFNO: I’m sorry, I’ve mentioned this before so this is not targeted at you specifically and the tactic of sending that many messages has come up often, Maybe I’m reading too much into it but my thinking is if you send out that many messages you don’t value women or you truly don’t value what finding a quality woman means. And any woman who has even a little bit of common sense will just think you are just gaming.

 

In addition even if you do get someone to write back and you start talking, you will be constantly be thinking in the back of your mind there is something better out there.

 

Again this is not specific to you because most online dating dude articles suggest just what you did and this is exactly why only 4% of women respond and get completely burned out.

 

And exactly why… “The Number Of Messages Men Have To Send To Get A Response When Online Dating Is Absurd” it’s a vicious cycle.

Wow, you've been using OLD for over 20 years? I'm really curious what it was like then compared to now. How has it changed? I tried it once 4 years ago and did the same exact thing I am doing now. I message bombed a few hundred women until I got a ton a dates. I found a GF, disappeared from this site for about 3 years and have a beautiful daughter to show for it. Sadly we broke up last April but I have no regrets. She's actually the one I met on this thread below. It was funny just rereading it myself...

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/romantic/dating/384389-too-much-old

 

Anyway, how could you have sent fewer messages in over 20 years than I have in 4 weeks, but claim you're not suffering from the paradox of choice??? There are literary thousands of women online at any moment. You can't possibly have a shortage of women to message unless you are shy or extremely picky - hence paradox of choice.

 

The sheer volume of messages I send has nothing to do with not valuing women. When I first used OLD 4 years ago I was a complete newb. I sat there reading every profile and carefully crafted long messages with my perfect match naively expecting a near 100% response rate. After wasting hours and hours and being shutout completely, I got advice from friends and tried the complete opposite. I just looked for pretty faces, skimmed profiles for inspiration to zing out one-liners, which I did. Suddenly, I was inundated with dates and met "the one" after about 10-15 dates. BTW Her profile sucked. I would have never met her if I was pre-screening like I had before.

 

I never think "there might be something better out there" when I'm talking to a girl. I simply try to line up as many dates as I can so long as they are not a complete dud (nothing worse than they pretty face that only answers questions with a short reply and never asks any). I've never made a date then cancelled. I let the women do that. They are pretty damn good at it. My risk is 15 minutes and 1 drink (which I enjoy anyway) if we have no chemistry. I never got what the big deal about meeting at a public place is...

Edited August 16, 2017 by CryForNoOne

[CryForNoOne]

To give brief context, in real life, it doesn't take 200 approaches to get a number. That would be a Quasimodo level of ridiculousness. Don't think I've even heard of that before.

 

More like 10 as a beginner. 5 when you are settled.

 

As for a response? Every girl, obviously. Sweetfish's OLD stats are shocking. It was a while back that I did it, but I don't remember it being anywhere near that bad, and it still pissed me off.

 

I find that about 40% or 50% of street approaches end up in a good back and forth mutual exchange. Some are straight up cringe worthy blow-outs though, too. A lot of guys don't want to deal with that, fair enough.

 

But I think if more men tried it, they would be surprised how f**king cool most women actually are as standard.

 

At various points of my life, I've had drinking buddies who seemingly did approach 200 women a night. We used to make fun of them, but they were average guys who got shot down a lot but also got laid more than I did in my 20's. By my late 20's I learned how to use them as an asset by playing "good cop, bad cop." I'd play the "good cop" or "straight man" who would tag along with my annoying "bad cop" friend who made the intro. I got more numbers than they did this way...

[Sweetfish]

JuneJulySeptember and Sweetfish,

 

It seems like you are just repeating yourselves. I already said I can see your points and even agree with them somewhat. I was not debating - just giving my perspective.

 

 

Dont get confused.. no one is arguing and no one is upset.. this is a forum and we are exercising view points and information.